International Assistance granted to the property until 2005

Conservation issues presented to the World Heritage Committee in 2005

The State Party provided a report on the state of conservation of the property dated 10 February 2005. It notes that the Cheviot coal mine project has been developed and is now operating outside of the Jasper National Park component of the World Heritage property. The State Party acknowledges that the approval of the mine and a 22km haul road for transporting coal from the mine to the processing location at another mine has been controversial and that the Alberta Environmental Appeals Board considered an appeal against the development of the haul road (24-25 January 2005) and is expected to announce their ruling in March 2005.

In addition to the State Party report, IUCN received in May 2004 information regarding the Cheviot coal mine near Jasper National Park, Alberta, which continues to be a controversial issue since it was first proposed in 1996. The report noted that while the previous Cheviot proposal was not developed due to its poor economics and public opposition, the parent companies (Fording Canadian Coal Trust and Teck Cominco) obtained an Alberta provincial permit for a new project covering a larger area, taking in the McLeod River valley. The reports indicated that the company and the Alberta Government have not, to date, undertaken an environmental impact assessment or any holding public hearings.

This information reaffirms the State Party report regarding the construction of the 22 Km Coal haul road. It is reported that in June 2004, construction had commenced and in August 2004 there were ongoing legal challenges to this mine and associated development which were expected to be heard in early 2005.

The State Party also reported on the mountain pine beetle epidemic throughout the range of the lodgepole pine forests in the province of British Columbia. It attributes the epidemic to the mild weather conditions and abundant habitat allowing the beetles to flourish and multiply rapidly. It is reported that mitigation measures are currently in place to address the potential health and habitat damage resulting from the beetle infestation.

Decisions adopted by the Committee in 2005

Adopted

Draft Decision

29COM7B.16

Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks (Canada)

The World Heritage Committee,

1. Having examined Document WHC-05/29.COM/7B.Rev,

2. Commends the State Party of Canada for providing a report clarifying the status of the Cheviot Mine near Jasper National Park and beetle infestation throughout the mountain ranges of British Columbia;

3. Welcomes the efforts by the State Party to enact mitigation measures against potential damage by the beetle infestation;

4. Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2006,an updated report on the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks, including the outcome of the legal process on the Cheviot mine project, clarification on the status of the mine in particular regarding proposals for a new project covering a larger area, and the status of the beetle epidemic, for examination by the Committee at its 30th session (Vilnius, 2006).

2.Commends the State Party for providing a report clarifying the status of the Cheviot Mine in Jasper Park and beetle infestation throughout the mountain ranges of British Columbia;

3.Welcomes the efforts by the State Party to enact mitigation measures against potential damage by the beetle infestation;

4.Requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1 February 2006 an updated report on the Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks including the outcome of the legal process on the Cheviot mine project, clarification on the status of the mine [I1]particularly regarding proposals for a new project covering a larger area, and the status of the beetle epidemic for examination by the Committee at its 30th session in 2006.

* :
The threats indicated are listed in alphabetical order; their order does not constitute a classification according to the importance of their impact on the property.
Furthermore, they are presented irrespective of the type of threat faced by the property, i.e. with specific and proven imminent danger (“ascertained danger”) or with threats which could have deleterious effects on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value (“potential danger”).